The Best Film Won

Well, now that the Academy Awards are over, I can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that the best film won.  Not the best film of the year, but of the two films being touted as the “frontrunners” for this year’s Best Picture award, the better film won.

Of course, Avatar fan boys are having a conniption fit trying to figure out why the Academy would stiff their masterpiece.  The Hollywood Reporter ran a piece a few days ago ruminating over why Avatar lost Best Picture (as if the award was its to lose).  It’s likely explanations included anti-Cameron bias (since apparently members of the Academy have picked up on the fact that he’s a boorish lout with a huge ego), preferential voting systems, and the Academy’s view of Avatar as “commerce,” with the implication being, I suppose, that Avatar was just too commercially successful.  There’s very little in the article that suggests the actual reason The Hurt Locker came away with the grand prize.  And that is:  it was the superior movie.

Yeah, Avatar is commercially the most successful film of all time.  Dollars don’t make a movie great though.  They don’t even earn recognition for a film when it is great…just look at the Academy’s snub of The Dark Knight last year when its critical success surpassed most of the nominated films.  But Avatar wasn’t The Dark Knight.  It wasn’t even the Tim Burton Batman.  It was a one trick pony, a film that achieved success solely on the basis of superior visuals.  Such a film deserves to be recognized for it’s technical achievements, and it was.  It even got best cinematography, which no film that relies so completely on blue screen technology deserves.  But it wasn’t nominated in a single acting category, nor for its screenplay.  That’s because neither the acting, the story, or the dialogue were worthy of critical acclaim, and those, as much as compelling visuals, are the essence of a quality film.  Avatar isn’t a quality film.  It’s a three hour video game cut scene, cinematic eye candy that has as much substance as a Paris Hilton biography.

It’s a bit disturbing to read the comment section of some of these articles.  Some of them are doozies…people talking about the Hurt Locker will be forgotten in a week while Avatar will live on in the public mind for centuries.   If so, it speaks volumes about the decay of society in general and American culture in particular.  It’s time for a little bluntness.  It is possible, however distasteful you may find a film or performance, to acknowledge it’s worth and merit while also acknowledging that you don’t care for it.  I’ve conceded this in the past about films that I didn’t particularly care for but that I recognize have merit.  Adaptation comes to mind…I didn’t like it, but I recognize why it was critically acclaimed.  At the same time, I think it is possible to enjoy a film while admitting that it has little merit and is not that good.  I enjoy the Fantastic Four films, but I freely admit that they aren’t good movies.  Personal taste does not mean that the movie automatically has merit or lacks merit because you enjoyed it.

So it’s time for Avatar fanboys to admit that the movie sucked.  And that anyone who truly believes, in their heart of hearts, that it was the best film of this year, that its plot, dialogue, and performances were enough to elevate the film to the top of the cinematic list, is out of their minds and an idiot.  Its most notable achievement is letting studios know that audiences will shell out an extra $5 to see a movie in 3-D, so now we are being treated to a rash of 3-D films, from Alice in Wonderland, to Clash of the Titans, and probably the next Harry Potter film.   Fans of Avatar continually try to compare it’s snub to the original Star Wars in 1977, but there simply is no comparison to be made here.  Star Wars was groundbreaking in the way George Lucas was able to mix various elements together to make a compelling and intriguing story.  That is nothing like Avatar, which does borrow from various stories, but in no way offers an original or compelling take on them.

If you liked Avatar, fine.  I don’t understand why, but there is no accounting for taste.  That said, if you are one of the many fanboys crying in your milk about Avatar being snubbed, just know that the rest of us are laughing at you.

Oscar Nominated Shorts

I’ve now seen all the Oscar nominated shorts, both live action and animated.  Here’s a brief rundown on each, and which ones I liked best.

Live Action:

Joachim Back’s “The New Tenants”

This is about two gay men who have just moved into an apartment in a city ( I don’t believe it’s ever stated which one), and they are immediately plunged into one unlikely scenario after another.   It’s kind of a dark comedy, and their reaction to the progressively crazy situations is hilarious.  Overall, I thought this was the strongest of the live action films.  All the action takes place in their apartment.  I especially enjoyed the way the director opens the film.  The dialogue is clever, and the storyline is so impossibly absurd that you can’t help but laugh.

Gregg Helvey’s “Kavi”

This was about a young Indian boy who is caught in slavery due to debts that his father owes.  While the story is sympathetic, there is nothing that really makes this one stand out.  The film does do a good job of portraying the plight of the family, and the ending shot is very cool.  Otherwise, it was just kind of so-so.

Juanita Wilson’s “The Door”

This is about a Russian family who is forced to flee their home after a nuclear meltdown.  I can’t remember if it says explicitly, but it is clearly meant to reflect the post-Chernobyl fallout.  The father and mother agonize over the effects that it has on their small daughter.  A very somber, sad story, artfully done and well acted.

Luke Doolan’s “Miracle Fish”

A young boy who is victimized by bullies, and clearly comes from a poverty stricken family, finds himself alone in the school in the middle of the day.  He is subsequently plunged into a violent situation.  An interesting film, and certainly a somewhat unique one.  There are several nice touches.  I didn’t like it as well as several of the other films, but overall it was strong.

Patrik Eklund’s “Instead of Abracadabra”

A film that contained more wit and humor than in many feature length films, this short is about a somewhat immature 20 something aspiring magician who lives at home with his parents.  As he attempts to impress his beautiful neighbor next door, he goes from one mishap to the other.  An especially brilliant film, and one I could watch repeatedly.

Animated:

Fabrice O. Joubert’s “French Roast”

A snobbish upper class patron of a coffee shop finds himself in a bit of a bind when he realizes that he can’t pay for his order because he’s forgotten his wallet.  The ensuing results are full of levity and silliness.  While this was clever, it was my least favorite of the animated shorts.  It wasn’t that it was bad, but a few other “worthy contenders” not nominated were also shown, and I thought those were stronger entries.

Nicky Phelan’s “Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty”

This was a brilliant satirical take on an elderly woman’s version of the classic fairy tale.  Absolutely hilarious, extremely clever concept with excellent voice acting and witty dialogue.  This was a very strong entry indeed.

Javier Recio Gracia’s “Lady and the Reaper”

A roguishly handsome young doctor and the Grim Reaper go head to head when the Reaper comes to claim an old woman who longs to be reunited with her deceased husband.  Sounds like kind of an odd concept, but it was engaging and hilariously funny.  The doctor reminded me of Brom Bones in Disney’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.”   This was a great short, very enjoyable.

Nick Park’s “Matter of Loaf and Death”

This was the longest of all the shorts, and it featured the return of beloved animated characters Wallace and Gromit.  If you haven’t seen Wallace and Gromit, you are missing out.  I recommend the full length film “The Curse of the Were-Rabbit” which I found hilarious.  This time, they are running a bakery and someone is bumping off bakers.  The over-the-top antics and Gromit’s facial expressions will have you rolling.  A very strong entry and well worth a viewing.

Nicolas Schmerkin’s “Logorama”

This was actually a hyper-violent jab at corporations (and cliched action movies).   It’s a world where EVERYTHING is a logo…the characters include the Pringles men, Michelin men, the Jolly Green Giant, and a maniacal Ronald McDonald.  A lot of wit, and a lot of outlandish scenario’s.  Overall, an interesting concept.

And there you have it.  If I were to choose, I would definitely pick “The New Tenants” for the Live Action category, although “Instead of Abracadabra” was a very close second.  Both had a lot of wit, both contained clever concepts, and both were vastly more enjoyable than the other three.  For the Animated category, it would be a much harder choice.  I enjoyed all of the animated shorts, although if I had to go with one it would probably be “Granny O’Grimm” or “Lady and the Reaper.”  Hard to say though…I thought even the honorable mentions were well done.

Roger Ebert Makes the Case

Roger Ebert in his pre-Oscar predictions sums up (mostly) my feelings about Avatar.

“The Hurt Locker” and “Up in the Air” were the Best Picture favorites for much of the autumn, but then “Avatar” won the Golden Globe and (for Hollywood, much more importantly) passed “Titanic” to become the all-time box-office champion, and now I suppose it’s the front-runner. If it won, that will be a sad day. Yes, it’s a phenomenon and I loved the experience. But the best film? Not compared to those other titles, it isn’t. To be seen to advantage, it needs big-screen 3-D. A DVD viewing will remove much of its impact, leaving many home viewers asking, What was the big deal?

I don’t want to hate on Avatar too much, but I’ve seen people on Twitter, Facebook, and other social forums going crazy over this movie.  When it comes out on DVD and viewers realize that it doesn’t translate nearly as well from 3-D imagery on a giant screen to a 32″ TV screen, people are going to back track on how great they thought this movie was.

In regards to his other predictions, he was dead on with many of them, although he missed the boat on quite a few others.  I’ll cover some of the other categories when I get a chance.

The Awards Are Here

Once again, another Academy Award season, and once again, a lot of disappointments.  Unworthy films and performances were recognized despite their mediocrity, and worthy films and performances were overlooked despite their exceptional ism.  Why should we care, you ask?  Because actors and directors who win the Academy usually find themselves in high demand, and studios sometimes look at the success of Academy Award nominees for direction regarding the types of future films they should sink money into.  Obviously this isn’t always the case, and there are a lot more factors that go into that…the primary one being what’s making money at the box office.  But it’s ridiculous to ignore the fact that the Academy Awards are the most prestigious awards in cinema, and they are what future generations look to as benchmarks for what was considered good films or performances in any given year.

With that in mind, let’s look at the nominations.  As usual, there are some movies that I still haven’t seen, so for the most part, I’ll attempt to refrain from offering to much of an opinion, since at best it will be based on critics reviews and my impressions from clips or trailers I have seen.

First up is Best Picture.  This is the first time since 1943 the Academy has ten nominees instead of five, and that’s attributed to studios who wanted more mainstream films to get nominated, rather than the indie type, limited release films the Academy has favored over the last decade or so.  While I’m in favor of the five nominee system that was used last year, I have to say that overall I thought the Academy did a good job of nominating best picture contenders.

There are three Best Picture nominees I have yet to see.  They are Up, The Blind Side, and Precious.  Up, by all accounts, is a fantastic film, and only the second animated film to be nominated for Best Picture (Beauty and the Beast was the other).  I’ve been anxious to see it anyway, so this only adds to my anticipation.  That said, I’m not a fan of allowing movies to be nominated in two Best Picture categories.  Up is probably a lock for Best Animated Film, so I’m not sure that I agree with it being nominated for Best Picture too.  Still, it has a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning critics overwhelmingly loved it, and judging by the strong box office numbers, so did the public.  Precious was also a favorite among critics.  I’ve been a bit squeamish about watching it, because it deals with some very tough issues, although it’s gotten praise from nearly every venue, from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to Plugged In Online.  I’ll probably tackle it sometime in the next few weeks, but I have no doubt, judging by it’s reception, that it’s probably a powerful but painful movie.

That leaves The Blind Side.  It’s a long shot film, and frankly, I’m doubtful, not just judging by critical reception but by clips and the trailers, that this movie deserved to be nominated.  It looks like one step up from a Hallmark film.  I’m sure it’s good, but the Academies are supposed to be reserved for the best films of the year.  Does The Blind Side truly qualify?  Color me skeptical…but I’ll have to see it to judge for myself.

The Hurt Locker was an excellent film that was pretty much a lock for nomination.  It also has garnered a 98% fresh rating amongst critics on Rotten Tomatoes, and it’s director, Kathryn Bigelow, is only the fourth woman to be nominated for Best Director.  This was definitely one of the best films of the year.  No question it should have been nominated.

An Education was also one of the best films I’ve seen this year.  At 94%, it got great critical reception, and even though the average film goer probably hasn’t seen it, hopefully it will pique some interest and get people to check it out.  Carey Mulligan was fantastic, one of the best female performances of the year, and the rest of the cast was also good.  Glad to see this one get some recognition.

Ditto to A Serious Man.  In fact, it’s my opinion that this is the best film of the year.  The cast was amazing, and Michael Stahlberg was snubbed by not getting nominated for best actor.  As were the Coen brothers for not getting nominated for Best Director.  The movie has so many subtleties and nuances, and in my opinion was more thought provoking than any film I’ve seen this year.  Again, not something the average movie goer has seen, but hopefully people will give it a chance when it comes out.

Inglourious Basterds was a highly entertaining film that should definitely be listed in the top films of 2009.  The cast was excellent and the script was fantastic.  The dialogue was some of the best onscreen this year.

Up In the Air was getting Oscar talk before it even premiered, and after watching it this past weekend I can see why.  Jason Reitman, the director, does a fabulous job of bringing multi-dimensional characters to life on a backdrop that is all too familiar.  The script was superb, and the performances were great.  George Clooney gives one of his best performances to date, my favorite since O Brother Where Art Thou?  Reitman really knows something about capturing people looking like people…many movies actors feel like they are giving a performance, but Reitman’s characters seem real.  This time especially so, since some of the characters onscreen were real people who had lost their jobs, talking about the experience of being let go.  Great film.

District 9 was a surprise to me.  It would definitely have been in my top ten list for 2009.  But I’m shocked that the Academy, usually ignorant regarding movies like this, actually gave it the credit it deserves.  I doubt it will win, but I’m pleased that it was at least nominated.  Sharlto Copley should have been nominated for a Best Actor, but there were a lot of great male performances this year.

That leaves….yeah, you know it.  Avatar.  If you know me at all, you already know my thoughts on this overblown, overhyped pile of feces.  Look, I don’t deny that visually it’s a fantastic movie.  But a movie is more than just visuals….if that’s all it takes to make a great movie, then 2012 should have been nominated.  I think it’s telling that Avatar was shut out of any of the screenplay or actor awards.  That’s because there was nothing original about the story, nothing exceptional about the cast.  Overall, it was nothing more than any other CGI bloated blockbuster, admittedly fun to look at but lacking any real merit other than it’s technical achievements.  I sincerely hope that Hollywood (and apparently, the American public’s) obsession with James Cameron’s ability to make mediocrity look good doesn’t result in Avatar going home with the top prize in cinema this year.  Of the seven movies I’ve seen this year, the other six were all FAR superior to Avatar in terms of overall quality, and I have to believe that at the least, Precious and Up are as well.  My vote, were I an Academy member, would be for A Serious Man.   My guess, however, is that it will come down to a race between The Hurt Locker and Avatar.  I can only hope that Hollywood’s sudden urge to appeal to the teeming masses doesn’t allow them to vote in the lesser of the two.

The Young Victoria

A

Victoria is years away from becoming the queen so powerful that she has a whole era named after her.  In fact, she’s so powerless when we first meet her that her mother insists that she be scrutinized and managed at all times, from which books she can read to never being allowed to walk down the staircase by herself.  She is the heir to the throne of England, her childless uncle being the reigning monarch, and she has powerful enemies.  Should her uncle die early, she will be pressured on all sides to turn her power over to a regent who can rule in her stead until she is old enough.

And in fact, her life seems to her nothing but a pawn in a giant game of chess, where she is manipulated by everyone in a struggle for power.  And she feels powerless to prevent it, until the day she meets young prince Albert, the nephew of king Leopold of Belgium, who himself is being groomed by his uncle to marry Victoria.  When she confesses how she feels like a chess piece used by those in charge, he advises her to learn to play the game better than they do.  “Or to find a husband who can play it for me?” she asks.  He responds, “Not for you.  With you.”

What’s Good

I truly loved everything about this movie, but I’ll start with the strongest part, which is the performance of the cast.  This is Emily Blunt’s finest performance yet, and she leads the way with a truly magnificent and nuanced performance as one of Britain’s most famous monarchs.  While some performances are judged by the hyper emotional scenes that films sometimes thrive on, Blunt’s strength is in the ordinary moments when she brings a classic historical figure to life.  The “monarch wishing to be free” has been done many times before, but rarely with the grace and ease that Blunt commands.

The rest of the cast is equally strong.  Rupert Friend as young Prince Albert is fantastic, bringing life and depth to the character.  You feel for his character as he grows to love Victoria, and he plays the role with equal parts restraint and ferocity.  Paul Bettany has always been good, but his performance here is so strong you hardly recognize him as Paul Bettany.  The rest of the cast is rounded out with great performances from Miranda Richardson, Mark Strong, and Jim Broadbent, among others, and all do a tremendous job in their roles.

The script is engaging, the dialogue believable and witty where it needs to be, emotional when it needs to be, and consistent throughout.  The film is shot in a pretty traditional manner, but looks good.  Jean Marc-Vallee gets the most out of his cast and crew.

What’s Not

Some critics have complained that the story is plodding.  I didn’t find this to be so at all.  It is a rather traditional biopic, and the tale of a young royal being used as a pawn by other powers isn’t unique, but it’s so well done here that I never found myself disengaged from the story at all.  Everything clicks and the chemistry between the two leads is so compelling I found it hard to look away.

I guess that’s my way of saying I didn’t really have too much to complain about.

As the Credits Roll…

This isn’t the best movie I’ve seen this year, but it’s definitely near the top.  In a period when crappy rom-com’s dominate the screen, this year has seen two of the more compelling on screen romances that I’ve seen in a long time.  Bright Star and The Young Victoria are both great movies with brilliant performances and wonderful cast chemistry, and they deserve to be separated from the crowd and recognized for their distinctiveness.

A Year of Quality Films

Lately I’ve done some reflection on the movies I’ve seen this year, and came to the conclusion that my initial assessment of this year in film was mistaken.  You see, I’ve contended up until a week or so ago that this was not a very good year for movies.  Part of that has been based on blockbuster movies that either disappointed me, or blockbuster movies that I was hoping would be better but still knew deep down were going to stink, and they did.  Allow me to elaborate.

I had hopes for movies like Wolverine, Public Enemies, and Angels & Demons.  No, I didn’t expect them to be Oscar worthy (well, ok, Public Enemies I thought had potential), but I at least expected them to be very entertaining with good scripts, intriguing plots, and engaging dialogue.  Wolverine, which I found to be moderately entertaining, really possessed none of these elements.  The entertaining parts came solely from the action sequences and special effects.  The plot line was a stale rehash of the whole “brother vs. brother” scenario without any elements to make it unique.  The dialogue was less engaging than Hugh Jackman’s previous dialogue on the X-Men films, and I didn’t find anything noteworthy about the script other than it suffered from cramming a gazillion mutants into it.  In short, it wasn’t a very good movie.  Angels & Demons I found to be even worse.  The book was entertaining enough, with a lot of history, albeit Dan Brown’s usual somewhat distorted revisionist version of it.  But the movie was dreadful, just a lot of running around with little to no explanation as to why characters were taking one course of action or another.  The historical references that the book thrives on were largely absent from the movie, and the camera work was less than impressive.

That leaves Public Enemies, which I think I gave a B here for.  In retrospect, I was probably being a whole lot generous.  It’s not that I hated this movie…the cast was great, and I think Michael Mann is a fine director.  It’s just that it was less than the sum of it’s parts.  In order to tell the whole tale of John Dillinger in a two hour time frame, Mann switched things up, killing off Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd BEFORE Dillinger, and even then both characters had a “we hardly knew ye” appearance (considering Channing Tatum’s work in GI Joe, perhaps that’s a good thing).  The movie was too frenetic, too unfocused, too much “a little of this, a little of that” without anything to connect the dots.

That leaves the films that I crossed my fingers on but knew were probably going to be awful going in.  This would include Transformers 2, G.I. Joe, 2012, and Avatar.  Transformers I actually did expect a bit better from….the first one was entertaining, albeit far from great.  The second one was a hyper-sexualized pile of excrement.  G.I. Joe was so bad it was good, with some of the worst acting I’ve seen this year.  2012 I also knew was going to be bad, and it didn’t disappoint, but the special effects were pretty spectacular.  Finally, I admit that I wanted to not like Avatar in advance, which probably shouldn’t be the case for any movie, but I was just weary of hearing about the genius of James Cameron, who by all accounts is a narcissistic jerk.  The movie actually surprised me in that it more than lived up to its billing visually.  That aside, the rest of the movie was predictable and boring, and hammered you with its ecological, anti-western message.

So, you might ask yourself, what did I think was so good about this year?  Well, the good movies were, in my opinion, REALLY good.  This was a year for quality, not quantity.  There weren’t a ton of movies I thought were just great, but the ones that were I thought were really great.

At the top of my list are A Serious Man and The Hurt Locker.  I should say, first of all, that there are still a several films which I have yet to see, that are likely to be contenders for the Academy’s top prize.  Up In the Air, Invictus, A Single Man, Crazy Heart, A Young Victoria…all will probably earn at least one of the major nominations, so my list of good movies this year is by no means complete.   However, any movies to beat A Serious Man and The Hurt Locker will have to be strong contenders indeed.

The Hurt Locker was just such a great movie.  The acting was superb, the dialogue was real and engaging, the screenplay sucked you in…it just had so many things going for it.  It really made you identify strongly with the characters on an emotional level, and only a really good movie can do that.  Plus, it gave you a new appreciation for the dangerous job that members of the military perform every day.  I’d truly have to rank it as the second best war movie I’ve ever seen, it only being topped by Saving Private Ryan. It’s that good of a film.

A Serious Man, though, may be at the top of my list. I’ve had a fondness for the Cohen Brothers since I saw O Brother Where Art Thou, but their latest is just as good, albeit in a different way.  The thing I loved about this movie is that it made you think.  I love to turn my brain off as much as anyone, but too many movies nowadays don’t just seek to entertain, they want to tell you what to think.  Avatar is a perfect example.  As I told one of my friends, it’s message is like a big cinematic hammer smashing you in the head.  No subtlety, no restraint, and it requires no brains to sit through.  It’s too preachy.  A Serious Man, by contrast, thrives on subtlety and explores internal and external conflict as well as any movie I’ve ever seen.  While a good portion of it explores a man’s crisis in faith through the eyes of a Jewish man, I think Christians familiar with the story of Job will still be able to relate.  It allows you to relate without trying to tell you its version of the answers, and that elevated it, in my book.  Difficult questions, whether it’s dealing with the trials of life or dealing with ecological problems, can’t be answered by film directors, and I usually find that the best movies are the ones that make you think about the problems rather than just telling you what their solution is.   The cast was superb, as well, and you felt more connected with them than with any movie I’ve seen this year.  This is the type of movie that leaves you thinking long after you’ve left the theater, like a good book that you keep coming back to.

After that, in no particular order, I enjoyed An Education, Bright Star, District 9, and Inglourious B-sterds.  The two former movies practiced something that is rare in Hollywood these days, the idea of restraint.  It’s that what the camera doesn’t tell you can be just as powerful as what it does.  Additionally, both movies carried extremely strong performances and positive messages, also something rare in Hollywood these days.  I touched on Bright Star a month ago, but An Education was just as good.  It also portrays internal conflict in a powerful way, pitting a studious life of education against a carefree life of concerts, art, and fun.  The cast was amazing, and even Peter Sarsgaard, who gives you every reason to despise him, is a sympathetic and understandable character.  Bright Star, of course, features the finest female performance I’ve seen this year in Abbie Cornish, and I’m truly disappointed this film hasn’t gotten more recognition.  The cinematography is amazing, and it’s a powerful love story.  It’s a movie in the vein of Amazing Grace, a movie that also failed to get the attention it deserved.  Both movies generally received critical praise, but that doesn’t always translate into the proper recognition.

The latter two movies, D-9 and IB, don’t exactly practice restraint but they were entertaining nonetheless.  D-9 is one of the best science fiction movies I’ve ever seen.  It makes you think, while at the same time keeping you highly entertained.  It also looks amazing for being shot on a 30 million dollar budget, WAY better than other movies that were released this year.  The cast was amazing, considering you’ve never seen most of them before.  On that tangent, this was a great year for unknown’s or virtual unknown’s.  Sharlto Copley, Michael Stuhlbarg, Abbie Cornish, Christopher Waltz…I could see any of these winning a Best Actor/Actress nom, and they featured among the best performances of the year.  But back to D-9…a well acted, well directed movie, and it looked wonderful.  Also, a decent movie that had a point that it didn’t hammer you over the head with.

Finally, IB was probably the most entertaining film of the year.  It wasn’t really restrained…that isn’t Quentin Tarantino’s forte.  But it was fun.  Brad Pitt as Aldo Raine and Christopher Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa was one of the best on screen duo’s I’ve seen this year, even though they didn’t share a significant amount of time together.  Pitt was as good as I’ve seen him, and I thought this performance was much funner and more entertaining than his turn last year as Benjamin Button.  The character wasn’t complex, but Pitt brought him to life through little squints and mispronunciations…and of course, he made it very clear that “Nazi ain’t got no humanity. They’re the foot soldiers of a Jew-hatin’, mass murderin’ maniac and they need to be dee-stroyed.”  I did think Tarantino’s blending of two storylines, that of Pitt’s Jewish vigilantes and the Jewish girl Shoshanna, gave the movie a lot of heart and elevated it beyond just a popcorn flick.

So what would I file under “Movies that I thought were going to stink that surprised me?”

Not many.  I suppose I could count New Moon in there.  It wasn’t good, but it was better than the first movie.  The performances were atrocious…Taylor Lautner was Hayden Christiansen bad in his role as Jacob the werewolf.  On the flip side, it looked light years better than the first movie, which looked truly terrible.

There were a number of good movies this year that merit mention…some were worthy of repeat viewings, some were good but largely forgettable.  In the former category, I would place Star Trek, Zombieland, Sunshine Cleaning…I’m sure I’m forgetting some, ironically.  Anyway, in the latter, I would place Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince,  Sherlock Holmes, and Observe and Report, among others.  They were fun to watch, but I don’t think they’ll be remembered for much.

I just don’t think this year was as bad as I first believed it to be.  Yeah, it had some huge flops, some big disappointments…but sprinkled in among those were some really quality films with positive themes, strong performances, and a willingness to show subtlety and restraint.

Avatar

C

For weeks now, all we’ve heard about is James Cameron’s brilliant and successful career, his film making genius, and his legendary vision.  We’ve been treated to tales of how Cameron is going to change movie making with his new film, Avatar, and how the movie is already an early contender for the prestigious Academy Awards.  And we’ve been treated to rounds and rounds of “Cameron has done it again!” from slobbering critics who have lavished praise on the work done by St. James, who took fifteen years to create the lush mythical paradise of Pandora.

And while Avatar is visually impressive, critics somewhere along the way seem to have forgotten that movies are supposed to do more than look good.  They are supposed to tell a story, and the good ones usually tell an original story, or at least a story in an original manner.  That can’t be said about Avatar, which is just a repackaged mixture of The Last Samurai, Pocahontas, and Dances With Wolves sans that great thespian Kevin Costner (hopefully all readers can identify sarcasm).  Anyway…somewhere in the fifteen years Cameron spent creating the world of Pandora to be exhibited in theaters across the country in 3-D, he should’ve created characters that were more than one dimensional.  And then thrown in a story that was less predictable and not as cliched for good measure.

In a Galaxy Far, Far Away…

Well, there’s probably not much need to explain the plot of the movie, since if you’ve seen any of the films I just mentioned, you’ll know pretty much everything that happens in Avatar.  Ex-marine Jake Sully, who is now paralyzed from the waist down, is brought to the planet Pandora by a multi-million dollar corporation to replace his brother on a project being funded by said corporation.  Turns out that Pandora is home to one of the universe’s richest minerals, called “unobtainium” (Get it?  Cue eye rolling).  And the planet is also home to a race of blue skinned aliens called the Na’vi who happen to be camped out on the richest deposit of unobtainium on the planet.  So the corporation has launched the Avatar project.  Since humans can’t live in Pandora’s atmosphere (they can’t breathe it), scientists have created Avatars, which are bodies that are a blend of human and Na’vi DNA, and are able to remotely control them by allowing humans to assume the consciousness of the Avatar.  Jake’s twin brother was trained to control one of the Avatars, but he gets killed before he can contribute, and so Jake is brought in to replace his brother (since they share the same genes).  Using the Avatars, the scientists are going to attempt to win the trust of the Na’vi and convince them to move.  If that doesn’t work…well, as the head of the corporation says, “If the carrot doesn’t work, we’ll have to rely on the stick.”  Or something like that.

What Works

On a visual scale, this movie is absolutely amazing.  I saw it in 3-D, and it’s truly one of the most visually compelling movies I’ve ever seen.  Shot after shot of unique landscapes, monuments, animals, plant life and aliens just pretty much leaves you in awe of the level of detail and attention that was committed to this project.  It’s clear where Cameron’s energies were focused, and on that front, I give him credit.  The movie just looks unbelievable.  And the planet and it’s inhabitants are mostly original (well, except for the Na’vi, but more on that later).  It doesn’t really look like any place that you have seen in movies previously, and so does a good job of keeping your interest, at least for a while.  As Jake discovers new places and new creatures, you do too, and it’s pretty impressive.

Also, the cast is solid enough…nothing Oscar worthy, but nothing terrible, either. I have a special place in my heart for Stephen Lang, who plays Colonel Quatrich, because he was the infamous Ike Clanton in Tombstone.  At least once I was hoping he would burst out with a “Let me tell you something, Mr. Kansas law dog, law don’t go around here.  You savvy?”  Alas, his dialogue is nowhere near that interesting here, but he’s fun to watch, nonetheless.  Sam Worthington as Jake Sully is pretty blase, nothing too embarrassing but nothing to really get excited about.

What Doesn’t

It’s a good thing the cast is solid, because they don’t have much to work with.  This film is one of the most boring, preachy, and predictable films I’ve seen all year.  To it’s credit, it didn’t have dog sized robots humping legs or planes that responded to voice activated controls in Gaelic.  But it was so utterly unoriginal that it telegraphed every move at least an hour before it made it.  This made the plot unimportant, and all you were left with was nice scenery to look at.  Which, don’t get me wrong, was beautiful, but after an hour and a half I was squirming in my seat.  As Jake learns the ways of the Na’vi, he sees a big pterodactyl thing flying around, and we are told that only five times has such a creature been ridden, and the last time it was done by a Na’vi who united the tribes and saved the day.  Could it be any more obvious which direction the movie was going to go? The movie was full of moments like this…it was like being handed the script before you watched the movie.

Further, the Na’vi are clearly supposed to stand in for Native Americans, and the mining corporation for the evil white man.  Now, I don’t mind a good “government screws the Indians” movie at all.  The government is in the business of doing that to everyone, and they certainly did it to Native Americans.  What I do find irritating is the “noble natives” against the completely evil and irredeemable interlopers.  All the Na’vi are selfless, good, and kind, and the humans are just greedy devils.  Well, except for the two or three who actually defect and join the Na’vi.  Such a plot lacks any complexity and is one dimensional, to say the least.  And the movie hammers you with sly inferences to Iraq, Afghanistan, and last of all, global warming. Such as  Jake praying to the “mother spirit” of Pandora, telling her that the humans “destroyed their mother.”  I always find it deliciously ironic, being slammed over the head with an environmental message coming from a movie that probably sucked up more energy in its making than I’ll suck up in one lifetime.  Of course, if Mother Earth is anything like Eywa, Pandora’s mother, then we’re pretty much screwed.  When Jake prays to Eywa, asking for help against the humans, his Na’vi girlfriend (the chieftain’s daughter–see the Pocahontas parallels?) tells him that “our mother does not take sides.”  Well, what kind of mother is she then?  A wicked stepmother?

Predictably, she does take sides later on.  At which point more irony is revealed.  This peaceful, kind and good-natured race of aliens is remarkably adept at killing humans.  I don’t know if it was a natural skill, or the Na’vi aren’t all they are cracked up to be, but they manage to bump off quite a few pasty earthlings before our superior technology starts to wipe them out.  Of course, according to the Na’vi, all energy is only borrowed and at some point you have to give it back.  I guess they objected to giving it back through the use of machine guns and grenades.

So to recap:  White loner finds himself in unknown wilderness, is befriended by the natives, who at first want to kill him but stop when the chief’s daughter intervenes.  He learns the ways of the natives, and when forced to make a decision between his people and the natives, chooses the natives.  All of this unoriginal material might be forgiven if the characters were complex or if the dialogue was engaging, but none of that is true here.  The movie relies heavily upon cliched dialogue and one dimensional characters, and as a result you never find yourself emotionally attached to the material at all.

All that’s left is to sit back and enjoy the sugary sweetness of some killer CGI.